What, do you think the outcome of this is that the police are going to start going around forcing you to make friends with women? You can be as much of an asshole as you want. But other people are equally free to call you out for it.

Nobody's going to force me to "include" people that I don't agree with, period.

Actually, that's exactly what will happen. There is not right not to be offended, but there is a right not to be harassed or threatened. People are starting to realize that all the "harmless" stuff is just building up to that, as it has done over and over again in the past. As such they are becoming less tolerant of it, and eventually people like you will be ostracised.

So, maybe no-one can force you to include people you don't like (unless it's a business or government setting, in which case anti-discrimination laws apply), but I have a feeling you will when you experience the isolation that comes with being a bigot.

Yes, but there is common sense, isn't there? If you like going around offending people just because you can, you will probably be seen as an asshole with all the rights and privileges that entails, freedom of speech notwithstanding.

Freedom of speech is a right, not a mandate. And that freedom doesn't mean your speech won't have consequences to you. For example, I can tell my hostess that her soup sucked. After that, I wouldn't expect to be invited back (sorry, Mom...).

I don't know anybody who has any idea who these people are, nor do they give one shit about any of this stuff. They just play games. I don't think these "cultures" and "communities" are nearly as big as people think they are. It's limited to a VERY small set of people commenting and participating in all this high-school drama. Of course, once it's on twitter and the internet in general, everyone thinks its way bigger than it actually is.

True. I play games and never heard of those people before.HOWEVER.I also walk on the street and never got mugged or shot at, it doesn't mean it's not happening somewhere else. The fact it's not important to everyone doesn't mean it's not important at all.Laws are created based on events that might only have happened to a small number of people, and while the vast majority never heard of those laws, they still exist.

It doesn't seem to be pervasive. We've all seen the recent stats on similar stories. Over half of all gamers are female. Less than 1/5 are under the age 18. The stereotypical teenage boy gamer is a small component of the "gamer" culture.

I doubt this is "Misogyny In Gamer Culture". I think instead this is just a few vocal idiots.

That's the problem though. When I was in high school, not everyone in the school abused me each day. No, the problem was the 10-20 kids who decided they had to punch someone so they could go home that day, and I was apparently an easy mark. Great fun, let me tell you.

It never requires a huge number of people to oppress an individual or group. It takes others who are willing to do so by force. Written word can be force, too.

It doesn't seem to be pervasive. We've all seen the recent stats on similar stories. Over half of all gamers are female.

About half of all humans are female... and misogyny is widely documented across history and across cultures. The presence or absence of misogyny is thus not correlated with the percentage of females in the population. Not to mention the multiple incidents that have come to light recently should provide further clue that there's far more than 'one bad apple'.

I think this has less to do with Gamer culture than it has to do with Marketing culture. It is not unique to gaming. Beer companies and any other company that markets to men uses the same techniques. This story and many other use the response to topics involving Misogyny as a reflection of gaming culture. I'm not sold. There is no data on this that I am aware of. I imagine if they had done the same video and posts about a book or beer commercials you would have the same sort of response. People that

It gets even better. Marketing that panders to girls is no less misogynistic. It's actually even WORSE. Marketing for women is all about making women feel like sh*t, especially about their bodies. The stuff is more caustic then genuine porn.

This is just more of the "nerds bad" narrative that the media has been trying to feed us lately. In truth, "gamer culture" is no worse than anything else including the women's magazines that claims to be feminist.

If you have ever been on XBOX Live in a game like Call of Duty or Battlefield with a female name you will very quickly realize that it is pervasive. Similar for comment threads on a number of prominent gaming web sites.

More over it definitely is a consistent and widespread problem in games. Almost all adult "open world" style games feature prostitutes, for example. Okay, they exist in real life so they are just being realistic, right? The reality is that they add them in as a cheap way to add "grit" and faux-realism, and then give them the same gameplay mechanics as other objects like vending machines and hotel rooms (usually restoring health in exchange for money). The player is encouraged to use them as disposable, generic tools to further their progress in the game. It's just lazy and unhelpful.

War movies could show realistic violence and the effects of weapons, but that would give half the audience PTSD so despite it being an easy way to make them real and edgy they tone it down. It's about using the medium responsibly.

"A few "vocal" idiots, or, rather, those that act out, can really stain an entire group." is what racists and other idiots who judge groups based on small subsets of their members believe. It is not what grown-up adults with a proper grasp on logic and common sense should believe.

Most people probably didn't know know Portal was lead by a woman because it wasn't relevant to the game's success.

Most people probably don't know who the lead developer was on any video game, because that shit doesn't fucking matter to 99.99% of the goddamn population.

It's not because 'misogyny,' or a 'boys club' or '[insert BS label]' - it's because it doesn't matter. We (by which I mean most gamers) aren't buying games because of who made them, we're buying games because we want to play that game.

Now, was this rant misdirected? Perhaps. But I've got to say something, because I'm tired of narcissistic bitches* saying that I'm a bad person for no reason other than the fact that I have a dick and disagree with their philosophies.

* If you're sitting there assuming I am referring to all women as narcissistic bitches, you're exactly the narcissistic bitch I'm talking about. Get over yourself.

Also, there is no incentive to solve the misogynistic trolling "problem" (assuming it even exists. There is ample evidence Zoe Quinn is a lying sociopath who made the whole thing up). The only thing that's ever done about situations like this is articles and calls to "raise awareness." But those articles are golden clickbait that drive ad revenues. And it's easy, easy writing because it's all been done before. Just open up the "gamers are hateful boys" folder and repost the same hand-wringing crap we wrote last year. Collect the money and wait for it to happen again.

It's all about the money. Quinn profits, the 2000 blogs that have written breathless articles about her plight profit. Nothing actually changes, assuming there was anything changeable to begin with. And now we wait for the next episode.

Question, why do you (generally speaking) feel the need to lump all the people who disagree with you together into one group, give that group a sarcastic name, and then abbreviate that name into an acronym which you can then use as a accusatory label whenever the subject comes up for discussion?

It sounds like the kind of thing my old paranoid-schizophrenic girlfriend would do when talking about "them", but i presume you are not mentally ill, so there must be some other reason for it. Is it some kind of bonding thing between people who feel threatened by others? Or do you believe that by creating the appearance of some kind of organized opposition that you will sway "neutral" parties toward your side? It just sounds dumb to me, but maybe i'm not the intended audience?

Let me answer your question with a question: why do you feel the need to psychoanalyze someone you know nothing about other than his use of the abbreviation "SJW"? Surely YOU would not engage in thinking all people who use those three letters in a sequence are the same, would you?

Well as i said, my initial presumption would be that people who always resort to blaming things on groups with three letter acronym names are just crazy. However i am trying not to fall prey to the simple "well those people are just crazy" impulse, so i'm trying to understand instead. Why do you feel that's appropriate? Do you not realize it sounds... strange to people who aren't versed in your sub-culture? Or do you not care? Do you believe you're trying to educate the rest of us about what "those people"

This is a story about feminists labeling an entire group of people misogynists.

Can you point out exactly where that was said? I have read quite a few of these articles and watch many of the videos, and I didn't see anywhere that labelled gamers are a whole misogynists. In fact, Sarkeesian's videos are at pains to avoid labelling the developers as misogynists, pointing out that most of the problems are not malicious but simply due to poor design or writing and a lack of awareness.

And yet a google search on the term accross several pages of results reveals exactly zero people using that phrase to do anything other than describe strawfeminists, either like you're doing, unironically and stupidly, or ironically and mockingly like the comic.

I love when people use the acronym "SJW," it's even more efficient than "misandry." It says "I am unapologetically backwards as fuck on a wide variety of issues, to the point that I am upset at the existence of people who are opposed to my backwardness."

Question, why do you (generally speaking) feel the need to lump all the people who disagree with you together into one group, give that group a sarcastic name,

I call the people involved in this scandal "Social Justice Warriors (SJWs)" principally because I refuse to insult the feminist or progressive movements by calling these people with feminists or progressives. Genuine second-wave feminists [twitter.com] have publicly criticised their behaviour.

If you want to understand the difference, look up the #Gamergate [twitter.com] and #NotYourShield [twitter.com] hashtags on twitter. The Social Justice Warriors are hateful, disingenuous, at times sociopathic bigots. They are adult, internet-empowered versions of the bullies and tormentors which many gamers remember from secondary school.

Gamers are the victims here. The modus-operandi of the SJWs is to cast themselves in the cloth of underprivileged groups -- most SJWs are in fact white, upper middle class, college aged -- then proceed to level accusations of privilege, bigotry, and misogyny against just about anyone involved in gaming for even the slightest perceived infractions. A climate of fear has developed, first in the indie and later wider gaming industry as a result of the "social justice" witchhunts which these people regularly engage in. Worse, this has resulted in SJW-aligned developers and journalists rising to positions of power and being first in line for awards and increasingly development funding, with cronyism trumping competence.

For Gaming, so often a hobby of last resort for the excluded and isolated in society, this is an awful and tragic outcome. For gamers, male, female, straight, gay or trans, it is a frightening development. Their hobby, their refuge, is being taken over by bullies.

Because their rhetoric and especially actions come across as so farcically disingenuous, I don't believe for a second that SJWs actually believe in or support the causes of homosexuals or transgender people in video games. Their support for women is also largely forced, and disturbingly biased towards the conservative view of women as a weaker sex who must be protected/defended (A view consistently challenged by the games industry over the years).

My honest opinion of SJWs is that they are privileged Neo-liberals, who adopt a forced social justice persona both to project their own (increasingly obvious) bigotry onto others, and ultimately to benefit themselves socially and financially. They are disingenuous, extremist bullies, and the gaming community is under co-ordinated PR attack [reddit.com], and has been almost completely censored on gaming websites [forbes.com].

The Social Justice Warriors are right about one thing though; this is a historical moment. Whether they win or lose, the GamerGate scandal will be seen as a watershed moment in the history of online-communities, and who controls them. Two weeks ago, I would never have believed that a clique so small could all but take-over a community so large, but it is becoming clear that this is precisely what (almost?) happened to gaming. There are lessons to be learned here, unrelated to the immediate issues, and I only hope the right people will take note and heed them.

1. The allegations against Quinn are insinuations with no evidence behind them.
2. Sarkeesian has been loudly contradicted and claimed to be a con-woman by people that can't take criticism and are annoyed by the success of her Kickstarter.
3. This is being called "misogyny" in gaming because it is directed specifically at women.
4. The Social Justice Warriors have all supported these women because they oppose misogyny.
5. It's so cheap and easy to brand gamers basement dwelling vrigin men-children than it is to look at the facts. This is stereotyping, but it is nothing like the harrassment, online bullying, doxxing or death threats made by some gamers against feminist critics.

It wasn't just "false accusations" from her ex-boyfriend. It was accusations from many of her boyfriends and other people that she slept with coupled with her story not making any sense and having plenty of holes in it. Oh, and also no proof that any of it took place.

As for Anita Sarkeesian? Well, after seeing how lying about being a victim worked out so well for Zoe, it's not exactly a big stretch to say that maybe she did the same thing. I mean, all those tweets coming in, from only one user, faster than anyone could type them, and immediately after receiving them we're supposed to believe that Anita logged out of her account and just so happened to search for those exact tweets, then took a screenshot of them as proof that she was "stalked and driven from her home by a raid."

Exactly. We don't know what happened, but let's just assume she is a cheating whore in all discussions of her professional work.

As for Anita Sarkeesian? Well, after seeing how lying about being a victim worked out so well for Zoe, it's not exactly a big stretch to say that maybe she did the same thing.

So you think one woman might be bad, and thus other women who claim to be victims of a crime are probably just the same. I mean, all women are this one generic personality, right? It's not like there is any significant variation between them, so the (imagined) actions of one speak for them all.

we're supposed to believe that Anita logged out of her account and just so happened to search for those exact tweets, then took a screenshot of them as proof that she was "stalked and driven from her home by a raid."

a) She never claimed she made the screenshot, and could have multiple computers/tablets anyway.b) She never claimed she was driven out by a "raid", only credible threads that included her home address.

Somehow these "facts" have become part of the legend now, repeated over and over until they become true in the minds of the not-really-oppressed.

Well, unfortunately, I feel that in the case of Anita, some of it was brought on herself. Her videos she has been using to show how games are portraying women in bad ways were in most cases taken completely out of context and twisted to fit her preconceived opinions. In one case using a section of Hitman which took place in an adult entertainment club, and saying that the women in the level are there only to be beaten/killed and used as distractions, when in fact, that is absolutely not the case. You LOSE points for beating on them. You are meant to AVOID them, just like most other people in Hitman, as they are not your target, you are not to kill people who are not your target, and yet, she makes a video of her own play-through where she intentionally kills them, and then says that is the only purpose for them being there.... Its like saying TV's are bad because you can bash someone over the head with a TV and demonstrating that you can do that fact, when in reality, the only behavior that is bad is doing that specific behavior.

And when she gets called out on that fact, she doesn't want to hear it, and disables comments so that it isn't shown what a load of crap she is spewing forth.

So TFS says that the accusations regarding Zoe Quinn were false. I hadn't heard this bit yet, is the article linked to actually confirmation of that? Sorry, I'd read the articles for myself but work filters are a PITA. The last I had heard was that the guy who writes for RPS and Kotaku had confirmed their sexual relationship.

I honestly don't care about her sex life or lack there of. The only thing of interest to me is a "journalist" possibly sleeping with a person with whom he should have a more professional relation ship with, and not disclosing that fact when making mention of her work, whether positive or negative.

TFA points out that the journalist in question never actually wrote a review of Depression Quest. If you can find one send them a link so they can add a correction to their article. Google doesn't turn up anything.

Really? I don't remember reading anything about her admitting to taking payment for sex.

Or do you mean that she merely has a lot of sex? In which case take your sexist (I'll recant that accusation if you've ever levelled similar insults at man who has done comparable things), puritanical attitudes somewhere where you might find fellow people who are jealous of others sex lives.

That's pretty laughable given the amount of evidence. Her ex-boyfriend didn't post false accusations. Among the things that were posted were Zoe's own words, tweets, facebook message, ok cupid posts, etc. Is Slashdot also ran by SJW's that refuse to see things for what they really are?

The author of the Vice article also has connections to Zoe Quinn, Anita, and the other white knight/SJW "journalists." Did you not even bother doing research on this before making a crap slashdot post?

That's the beauty of facts. They still remain facts even if you disagree with them.

Those aren't the false accusations referred to by the article. The false accusations are the ones that suggest that she slept with Nathan Grayson in order to persuade him to write a positive review of one of her games. These accusations were quite widespread (e.g. 1 [ign.com], 2 [gamerheadlines.com], 3 [knowyourmeme.com]), and appear to be completely false because nobody has pointed out a review written by Grayson of any of Quinn's games which was published after the date she's accused of sleeping with him.

Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone who doesn't know her personally would care what men she chooses to sleep with. It's not like it's actually any of our business, really. The one important accusation, that she used sex to get positive reviews for her game, turns out to be false. So let's just forget about the rest, OK?

Instead of saying that those accusations were false, Zoe Quinn and co. proceeded to delete everything, ban everybody from gaming zine-s who talked about it. Zoe Quinn herself never said that those accusations are false.

Attack against her was not because shes a woman, or that she sleeps around. She sleeped around with people who worked in gaming news sites that hyped her game. That`s why.In every thread or site or blog dissing here, there is zero hate because shes a woman, nobody cares about her gender. Gender is not the issue, it never was.

Other things about her have also surfaced. Like she harassed thefineyoungcapitalists, who were women devs BTW. Same women who gaming news sites want to protect, but refused to publish their side of the story because "You don`t talk about Zoe Quinn`s bad behavior". Or how she sexually harassed someone in her wedding.

A YouTuber by the name of InternetAristocrat has 3 videos on this matter. It's worth watching these to fully understand the details of this situation.
Part 1 [youtube.com]
Part 2 [youtube.com]
Part 3 [youtube.com]

I generally dont keep up on this stuff, but the post by Zoe's ex was filled with actual proof that she is apparently unbelievably manipulative. I didnt see any rebuttals, either-- just complaints that he crossed a line by posting private conversations. That can be argued, but noone seems to deny the accusations.

I didnt get to the parts about accusing her of trading sex for reviews or anything, but shes not the shining champion of feminist rights that you want.

No one thinks she is. But unless she's committing murder, this reaction is overblown. We think the people attacking her are scum for making something that would be a small deal for any male in a similar position into one of the biggest conspiracies ever.

And that their actions reinforce the notion that misogynistic beliefs have become endemic to the "culture" of gaming, inasmuch as it has one.

People are objecting not because Quinn and Sarkeesian are angels, on a pedestal and beyond reproach, but because there are elements of culture that are causing this problem and standing up against it is the only thing that's going to see change.

I'm frankly exhausted with dealing with people like you, but you at least seem to be trying to frame this in an honest way, so I'll do my best to not be angry about this.

1. It doesn't matter. You might think the details of what she did wrong matter. They don't matter. Because they're small fries to everything about the video game journalism industry. And over a free twine game. It's not that big deal. However big a deal the personal infractions might seem, they're not that big a deal. That might sound like personal opinion, but it's not. This is a case of proportionality, and the effect sex and sexism have upon the perceived severity of crimes among certain misogynistic subsets of the population.

No one bats an eye when IGN gives for profit game companies who put ads on their site a decent review. And that is so much bigger than a link on a blogpost. Whatever crimes have happened here, they had almost nothing to do with the level and nature of the reaction.

2. It really does matter that the nature of the "crime" was sexual. And that they originated out of a lover's dispute. That's important because, nominally, that's private. You can tell your friends. You can even complain to strangers. But when strangers start getting emotionally invested and involved, it's a symptom of something very wrong. I know, I know, you think that's not you. You're only involved because of "nepotism". Except, see point #1. It's not that big a deal, and the activities involved do not deserve any sort of defense.

3. Gaming culture is broken. Do you really think it's okay that people get called "nigger faggots" on online games? That it's normal? The "It's just a game" excuse doesn't hold up, because that shit doesn't crop up in other types of non-video games. We've let the escapism(which is healthy in moderation) of the system capture the way we treat it each other(which isn't). Heaven help you if you happen to actually reveal yourself as female. Just ask any lady who games, that's not an understatement at all.

And the problem with people like you isn't 1,2 or 3, it's that you're not aware of how bad it is. You don't notice the absolutely detestable levels of shittiness that permeate the behaviors. Threats on your life aren't normal. I make all sorts of strongly opinionated posts on the internet. And no one has ever threatened my life over them. Not even once. I do expect it eventually, but to normalize and dismiss it is completely unreasonable, especially with the severity and focus the threats receive.

These kids(who lets be honest, many are probably are only children mentally) doing abhorrent behavior, they need to see an environment where they don't get an implicit endorsement of their behavior, where people will point out whatever small crime they're fixated on, when they've already done worse themselves.

You are MAKING this about sex and sexism. Zoes boyfriend was (understandably) upset, and had an actual important grievance to air: that Zoe had a non-neutral relationship with the people supposed to be reviewing her games.

It should have ended there: many such stories do, with the person violating the professional code (ie, "dont sleep with your reviewers and then pretend its unbiased") being discredited and everyone ceasing to care.

But in this case I've seen two stories defending Zoe, and not on factual grounds, but on some bizarre allegation of rampant sexism by untold misogynist males. And then there are posts from people like you, alleging that I, too, am part of the problem because I find her behavior unacceptable (along with the implication that I somehow support men who do the same sorts of things). The entire thing was created out of air; there is no reason to be defending Zoe, and frankly noone outside of some tiny niches cared until ArsTechnica and Slashdot ran these stupid stories accusing everyone with a Y chromosome of being an immoral bastard.

Im really not sure on what grounds youre leveling the accusations that you have been leveling, particularly at me; I've seen you on slashdot, but Im quite certain I dont generally get involved on these cesspool comment threads because theyre utterly ridiculous and usually I have the good sense to let the trolls troll. Maybe the lesson here is to just log out of slashdot and let you and everyone else who cares yell at each other until the end of time. But for your sake I'd recommend you not run around in life accusing random strangers of hating women just because they think there should be standards of journalistic integrity.

Nonsense. My exposure to this issue has been entirely through articles like this one attempting to demonize the ex-boyfriend, who by all accounts was treated in a way that would have been absolutely blasted if it had been towards a woman. She was cheating on him with the people who were supposed to be reviewing her work, all the while manipulating him into thinking he was crazy for suspecting that she was cheating. She claimed that it would be "rape" to have an intimate relationship with someone while cheating behind their back, and then did exactly that. And shes apparently a chronic liar.

The "huge conspiracy" I simply havent seen; I literally had not heard of this issue until I saw an article on ArsTechnica on what a scumbag guys are for demonizing Zoe Quinn (What? Who?). Apparently shes so notorious that the most white knighting article on Ars and Slashdot cannot have her looking good at the end; theres just too much dirt out there for even the most heavily spun article to hide.

I'm guessing the article was written by someone that was just born. It has existed forever in gaming. My wife is a gamer chick and back in the 80's she had to deal with this crap.

It's not only video games. she used to play MTG in tournaments 8 years ago (She has a 4 digit DCI number), last time she played she was harassed several times by the low IQ morons that are prevalent in society to the point that she refuses to play it ever again.

This crap is not new, what is needed is people finding these scumbags that pull this crap on girls/women and beating the shit out of them.

For some reason, slashdot has mostly ignored this topic for the past couple weeks, and now we get an article that revels in moralistic naysaying while ignoring what keeps this going.

The recent "ugliness" is not just a product of sexism and misogyny. To be fair, women have been harassed. To be even more fair, not all women who have been harassed have been harassed by "gamers".

The fiasco that has now grown into "Gamergate" (not my term) is not easy to relate in few words, but I will summarize that it is a reaction by enthusiast gamers against a clique of prominent video games journalists, writers, and indie developers who have been using their personal connections to promote each other's works and political ideology, as well as exclude those who do not toe the line.

It began when the ex-boyfriend of indie developer Zoe Quinn made a blog post detailing with evidence how Ms Quinn cheated on him with at least five other people, as well as perceived attempts by her to emotionally manipulate him. (http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]) Among individuals named in the post were Nathan Grayson (a writer for Gawker Media's Kotaku and former writer at Rock, Paper, Shotgun) and Robin Arnott (a judge at the Indiecade independent games competition that later went on to give Ms Quinn's game an award). Initially, this post was ignored by games journalists, and was circulated in online gaming forums. However, many forums deleted any and all topics concerning the matter, including the largest reddit thread deletion in history (with over 20K comments deleted; http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2dz0gs/totalbiscuit_discusses_the_state_of_games/ [reddit.com]) concerning youtube commentator TotalBiscuit's response to Ms Quinn allegedly using a false DMCA request to take down one of the first videos discussing the subject (http://themundanematt.tumblr.com/post/95428752119/dmca-notice-and-removal [tumblr.com]).

Investigation by redditors and members of various boards on 4chan soon uncovered that Ms Quinn allegedly pointed her twitter followers to critique a new game charity designed to help female game designers have their ideas actualized because she felt the charity's profit-motivated goals and its policy towards transwomen (biological males who identify as women) were oppressive (http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/60/24/6024fb_5271447.jpg [fjcdn.com]). When the creator of the charity attempted to seek promotion from major gaming journalist sites, he was told that since Ms Quinn had issues with the charity, no promotion would be possible (knowyourmeme.com/photos/814183-quinnspiracy [slashdot.org]).

While specific written pieces promoting Ms Quinn's work were actually short in supply, further investigations showed that the relationships of other journalists to their subjects were less tenuous. Patricia Hernandez of Kotaku was shown through previous twitter conversations to have lived with and possibly had a romantic relationship with Anne Anthropy, an indie developer she directly promoted in several articles. Ben Kuchera of Polygon, among others, was shown to be a supporter of Ms Quinn on Patreon, a site designed to crowd-fund stipends to content-creators. In response to these issues, the two above mentioned games journalism sites posted clarifications and/or updates to their positions on conflicts of interest, noting that they would attempt more honest journalism in the future, as well as in the case of Kotaku disallowing writers to contribute to subjects' Patreon accounts.

This is when hell started breaking loose. Prominent games journalists and indie developers cried out on twitter that Kotaku and Polygon

These search results on the One Angry Gamer [blogjob.com] website about The Fine Young Capitalists game dev team (who also happen to be women, some might remember them as the team who wrote the game Depression Quest [depressionquest.com]), who got blackballed by unscrupulous writers for a handful of well-known gaming and tech review outfits because of the second-rate "escapades" of one Zoe Quinn and her "relations" with several of them. Ironically, it was 4chan who stepped up to raise $5,000 to fund them when the rest of the community dropped them like a sack of shit because of Ms. Quinn and her "conspirators' " favoritism. PS quotes=sexual escapades and pillow talk railroading.

Sad thing is that there's so much truth to the allegations against Zoe that has been drowned out by the idiots and trolls who want to offend or think that their way works. She even admitted flat out on twitter to having sex for publicity, and yet not a single time has the issue journalistic integrity of video game reporting been raised. There exist obvious and blatant conflicts of interest in several of her endeavors and the media that actually cares to report this ignores this fact. That slashdot plays along is not surprising, this website has a long reputation of pandering to that crowd and backing down on real facts cases like these. It's much easier to just play along right?

Consider also that Zoe Quinn was outright accused of sexually harrassing a fellow dev at a wedding, whereupon she immediately began the process of what they call "victim blaming" and riled her army of fans/supporters to berate and verbally assault him. There is a huge double standard for the controversy surrounding zoe quinn, and everything she's done wrong is being swept under the carpet because "omg internet bullies".

I don't care if she had sex with fucking 10,000 guys; that's not the issue at heart here. The 'allegations' are actually facts, and what I care about is that she slept with those people for publicity she did not deserve, that was taken from more deserving games. AAA devs don't care because money, but for indie devs this is extremely important because if it becomes a good ol' boy system in video game journalism then good games that deserve the spotlight will miss out even more than they do. And, also, bad games that don't deserve shit will continue to flood steam and make the front page. Stop supporting videogame-political machines.

How the hell do you demonstrate that? Do I need to find her on video stating she was purposefully sleeping with people? She slept with this guy and "coincidentally" her game floated to the top of his list. At the very least it is a conflict of interest.

The only people focusing on Zoe is the gaming media. Most of the gaming community is trying to focus on the gaming media. People are saying the media is being dishonest. Dishonest like giving their close personal relationships very favourable reviews. Funny h

In this thread, the "accusation" is that the accusations against Zoe have truth to them. The accusation takes the form of a comment, not an article in its own right. Your "[citation needed]" post is out of place.

If you're curious about it, look it up. If you dispute it, dispute it. This is a website where people comment about the article, and often about things completely unrelated to the article. Some work on your part is required, the comment thread isn't a place for you to whine about not being spoon-fed. For your [citation needed] comment to be taken at all seriously, you have to at least add that you searched for it and couldn't find it, so you don't believe it's true without more work on OP's part, thus [citation needed].

As it turns out I was curious about the accusation as well so I searched for some more information. Took me about 10 seconds to find some interesting things:

At a quick perusal, it seems like; a) she has been subject to some abuse by misogynists, b) she has been engaged in some conflict of interest regarding reviews of her games, and c) she has both benefitted from and promulgated the misogyny aspect of her story.

The misogyny part is obviously bad. But if Zoe is taking advantage of -- and thereby harming -- the movement to advance the equality of women in gaming and technology, then she is bad too. If that is the case, then we who seek equality should reject her as an icon. Backlash is a perilous thing to progressive movements.

It shows the account was specifically created for this, posted everything in 3 minutes, and was discovered and screencapped 12 seconds later without being logged in or doing a search. In other words: whosoever took the screencap knew about this the moment it was done.

It shows the account was specifically created for this, posted everything in 3 minutes, and was discovered and screencapped 12 seconds later without being logged in or doing a search. In other words: whosoever took the screencap knew about this the moment it was done.

Or maybe Anita Sarkeesian saw the first tweet from that account in her mentions, navigated to the tweeter's Twitter stream, decided to take a screencap, copied the URL, opened up a private tab and took the screen cap. She would have had 3 minutes to do that, and it only takes a few seconds to do.

(The reason why one should always take screen caps in private tabs or private windows is that it minimizes the risk that your screencap will inadvertently reveal any personal information about you.)

Then and now when the geek speaks about women, I can't escape the feeling that I have been teleported back to the high school locker rooms of 1964. The only pandering on this site is to the geek's own adolescent sense of manhood,

I am a geek, and I am not a misogynist. It is wrong for you to engage in prejudicial stereotyping.

Given the fact this is a quite heavily biased story not looking at the actual complaints of the other side, pretty much made by "the ones that arrived first", i don't think it will last even seconds before the shitstorm begins.

That's the problem. Both women lied about events, they created their own hate campaign and claimed it was against them. You'll notice there are no police complaints for any of the things they claim. The massive conflict of interest between these two women and having sex with a number of prominent people in the gaming "review" industry is never addressed by the rags, just the fake stuff these women created. They're playing the industry to make their millions. They've openly discussed it, clearly thinking twitter to individuals is private.

The problem is many people think they're white knights and go all out to protect these fair damsels. Personally, I'd hope someone reports the death threats to the police, they perform an investigation and once the truth comes out, we'll never hear from these two again, or their champions.

I'm a male gamer and I agree with the assertion that video games with women typically find methods of objectifying the female form... but it's not as though video games or gamer culture is unique in this way. The gaming industry objectifies women. As does Hollywood. And print media.

One of the best selling products in history is the female form and it sells well. Sex sells well. What do you do in a capitalist society when there is a seemingly unlimited demand for a product of which you have a nearly unlimited supply? Well, you sell it.

We can even take it a step further an confidently assert that there will always be a sufficient supply of the female form to meet or exceed demand due to psychological imperative with which most Western girls grow up that suggests that if they cannot receive validation of self through other actions or deeds, then there's always the option to resort to sexuality. One could even assert that this persistent and potentially indoctrinated psychological rationale may be one of the roots of reproduction for humanity.

And it's even easier to supply the female form in games because you don't even need a female. You just need artistic skills and an imagination!

So we've defined the multifaceted problem (biologically-enforced demand and an unlimited supply). We've also based the discussion on the issues that such objectification is becoming more and more of a nuisance to the comfort of more and more people (social evolution).

So what is to be done?

Stop all games that singularly sexualize the female form? What if both the male and female forms are equally sexualized? All good?Do the same for video and print media?Do we affect demand?Are we to shame males and lesbians for appreciating the female form in game, video, and print media?

And this is where I always get stuck. If we want to change the frequency or the visibility of the objectification of the female form, we have to affect supply, demand, or both-- but doing so by shaming or legislation seems to infringe not only upon the social contract but upon biological imperatives thus making such an effort pointless.

That's ridiculous, and you're a troll. The reason people hate Anita Sarkeezian is not because she is a woman, but because she purposefully misrepresents facts in games and posed as someone that enjoys games when there is video evidence of the contrary. She lied to the people that financed her videos and then did not even deliver, not to mention that it's such poorly made crap that a high school student could have done better. Zoe Quinn got backlash because she is a morally bankrupt scumbag that slept with other people in her industry and journalists that promoted her game. She also made up the Wizardchan incident and basically got a bunch of lonely virgins to take the heat for something they did not do. In both cases the hate they received is due to their actions and character, not because they are women.
Oh, by the way check out that list of "developers" most of them aren't developers themselves and are only tangentially connected to those companies. These people are actively trying to ruin gaming as a hobby. They politicize everything and try to make an issue over the smallest things. They deserve all the hate they get.

It sounds like that was said in the context of comparing to other fan-doms. Such as someone might be a Twilight fan and write some fan-fiction. She is saying, in response to something before the cut which is not shown, that her case is slightly different. She is not a fan.To me that could even mean "I'm not a fan. I am a gamer."In any case, I don't think it follows automatically that she does not like video games. That can only be said if the context in which she spoke is ignored, and her words taken to the

Oh, please. If she liked video games she wouldn't actively lie and misrepresent video games and bitch and moan about every little thing, some of which are of her own invention. Take the Hitman video she did. She went on about how the game rewards you by killing the dancers at some club, when anyone who has played the game knows that you actually get punished for it, due to their deaths being unnecessary. She's a dishonest cunt, and you should stop trying to invent situations that we know don't exist. Her actions reflect that she does not like video games and she never has.

She didn't say she doesn't like games, she said that she wasn't a "fan", i.e. just a casual player. I wouldn't say I'm a fan of modern games because I haven't played many, but that doesn't mean if someone invites me to try one I won't enjoy it.

Instead of making ad-hominem attacks why not address the points she makes in her videos directly? Can you point to specific examples of where her research and conclusions were incorrect and undermine her wider argument?

They are equally culpable, and they've been called out. The problem is that the media keeps focusing on her to make it seem like some fedora crusade, when in reality it's calling out all the gaming press and Quinn at the same time. Let's face it, gaming journalists have been in bed with devs and publishers for a long time, it just has gotten so out of hand that now we have journalists and devs literally in bed with each other. This would never fly in any other industry, so why do we let it occur here?

I almost didn't even look at the comments here, especially since I'd burnt through the last of my mod points last night, and especially the first wave of really offensive shit that gets posted any time the treatment of women in geek culture comes up just depresses the hell out of me. (I'm trying to stick to the optimistic version opined by another friend, wherein there's a really grim whiny ass first wave, which mostly gets modded down over time. Over course, the friend

Misogyny isn't the right word, but objectification probably is. The entertainment industry is really shallow that way, and I'm saying that as someone that has worked professionally in both music and game programming/game music (I've also done game art and 2d and 3d modeling, but I probably couldn't cut it there in modern games - it didn't take as much talent in the 1990s). I lobbied to have female characters in one of the games I worked on and was mocked and told by the owner that there was no market for that (and all I really asked for was ONE female character NAME in that game, which was a driving game - incidentally, someone modded them in later). I also have a friend in TV and that industry isn't much better, and he is probably the best example of that (for years behind his back my friends joked of him as our male slut friend, but he finally settled down with a long term girlfriend and even moved in with her and sold his bachelor pad, which he refused to do with the other two fairly long relationships he had).

First articles here, then a new policy on Fark, and now yet another story about misogyny. It's a constant, subtle pressure in the background for Millenials that women are oppressed

Or, you know, there's a lot of men who are childish assholes and misogynists.

Because, really, death threats? Threats to rape her? The crap I've seen in the coverage about this pretty much means this isn't hand-wringing and moralizing... this is a sign of some pretty terrible (if not criminal) behavior.

Some people get online and become complete and utter sociopaths. Others don't seem to need to be online.

the media would have you believe there are millions of people out there raping women and whatnot, thats the issue with the non stop coverage. Sure there is a problem with a sub culture of a sub culture, but the way the media is ramming it down everyones throats you would think every last women who picks up a controller will be raped by a gamer. its journalistic dishonesty.

No, but just about "every last women who picks up a controller" will be threatened with violence or rape by a gamer.

http://fatuglyorslutty.com/category/death-threats/

That ^^... is a fucking problem. I sure as shit don't have to deal with crap like that when I'm online.

Even if not a single person ever followed through on their threats, it creates an incredibly hostile atmosphere that few would want to endure therefore creating a cultural divide and effectively excluding women from the activity.

And, somehow, even if that was deemed acceptable, even if we all said "ok fine gaming is to be a sausage fest for all time", do you really think the attitudes given voice by these in game messages somehow vanish once the sender puts down the controller and joins the rest of us in the real world?

This is not limited to gaming. Here's a breakdown of the statistics as they are known right now. Based on this: Wiki-link rape statistics [wikipedia.org] 1/6 women have been raped in the US. Out of 150 million women in the US, that is around 25 million women estimated which have been raped. I think it takes millions of rapists (mostly men natch) to reach that number. So YES, millions of people (mostly men) ARE in fact out there raping people. No media bias needed, just knowing some real numbers.

That's still seven or eight million men in absolute terms, of course, but far fewer than what is erroneously claimed by the old, failed, misandrist "rape is nothing less than a conscious conspiracy by all men against all women" model.

It is easy for us, as humans, to leap from "all rapists are men" to "all men are rapists". Even if the former proposition were true (it isn't) the latter is unrelated to it.

There is a population of sociopathic predators in our midst. Most of them are men. All of them are dangerous. Their victims are both men and women (we don't even know what the rate of male victimization in sexual assault is... all we know is that the reported rate is much lower than for women, but it would be, wouldn't it?)

Focusing on men vs women rather than citizens vs predators is exactly what the predators need to keep on preying on the innocent. It's time we stopped doing that.

She somehow noticed the threats without being logged in, and captured the twitter feed within 13 seconds of the final post. The whole affair was a rapid-fire set of shifting crazy-talk across three minutes. It looks like manufactured evidence, and all explanations to the contrary are wild stretches.

"Or, you know, there's a lot of men who are childish assholes and misogynists."A lot or a small percentage? That is the question. The internet is big and and even 1000 men acting like that is a very small number when you look at the total but if you have a thousand jerks posting that they want to rape and or kill you it seems like the whole world. That does not make it okay but the simple truth is that the internet allows idiots of all genders and orientation to seem like a large group when if fact they are

I don't often encounter them in real life. Sure there are some out there, but it's a huge stretch to claim that there are a lot of men that dislike women.

Some people get online and become complete and utter sociopaths.

This is in fact what people are missing - a lot of online trolls are not truly misogynists. Or that is to say, they will screw with everyone equally or whoever they can get the biggest rise out of.

In real life they may well not be misogynists at all, as you say some people get online and they turn into something different and almost inhuman in the resolve to cause pain and distress. The kind of trolls that went after Robin William's daughter after his death - that's not being a misogynist, that's being an asshole.

Asshole or misogynist, it doesn't matter. The behavior should be viewed as unacceptable. Fuck, do you go around telling people on the street that you're going to kill or rape them? And trying to shade the issue because someone used one negative term rather than the other, when no one will know what the actual motivation was, just gives cover for this obnoxious behavior. You just shouldn't fucking do that shit, mmmkay?

Plus, idiots like these are driving us towards the day when anonymity on the internet goes away. Do you want that? Because that's what it's coming to, boys and girls. So either act like adults and figure out a way to police yourselves in a reasonable way, or get locked down - the internet is now too important to the "normal" function of our society to allow a bunch of misogynists, assholes, or whatever to disrupt it. And the powers that be certainly won't let that happen. Defense of anyone who acts like this for any reason only makes things worse.

Are we talking about the same Zoe Quinn? The Zoe Quinn who shut down a gamejam specifically targetted at helping women coders, because she perceived it as in competition with her own fundraising efforts?

So you argue that some men in shining white armor should come to the aid of the damsels in distress? Isn't it ironic how the harassed women are now used as a damsel-in-distress plot device in some gamer misogyny story?

When they're abusing statistics with the goal of spreading hate, when many mainstream feminists have rabidly man-hating quotes strung behind them, and when they don't collectively struggle for equal responsibility that definition sounds pretty damn hollow.

It's more to do with the way women die in these games. Male characters usually have, well, a character, a personality and some role in the story. Their deaths have meaning and relate to them, and are at least somewhat realistic.

Female characters tend to be so 2D they often don't even have a name. Their deaths are typically a cheap plot device to provide motivation for a male character, or show just how evil the bad guy is. When they die they are often wearing skimpy outfits or end up in suggestive poses. Hitman was actually advertised with female cadavers in sexy underwear posed suggestively on a bed, with a little neat bullet hole in the head so as not to spoil your fapping.

In Mario games Peach is almost always kidnapped at the start, and then Mario and Bowser fight over her. She isn't a player in the game, she is the ball. Why not maker her playable along side Mario, like Luigi is? She is a prop, utterly generic in every way (pink clothes, lipstick, high heels, eyelashes, utterly helpless) and only there to provide a smooch of victory at the end.

You don't get it, do you?Zoe and Anita do not harm us in any way. People like Ben Kuchera, K.Thor Jensen and such, do.You haven't paid attention in class. And as far as I know, Ben Kuchera is a guy, not a woman, so I am not misogynist for calling him on his insults and doxxing threats. Look them up.

Not to mention Phil Fish producing a massive internet meltdown calling everyone a rapist (including YOU) and telling aspiring developers to quit. I think Phil Fish is also not a woman. Also, he didn't do almost any work on Fez, look at the credits. He was just an idiot hogging fame from a team you'll never hear about.

I am a developer. I was attacked by the people claiming to be on my side for suggesting that bias shouldn't exist. For supporting equality. But you know what? They don't want equality. They want to be few and rare so they can maintain their "special" status.

This is an issue of journalistic integrity and quite possibly attempts at reculturing a community to conform to specific political values. The charge of 'misogyny' is just an attempt to muddy the waters and/or poison the well of any would-be critics.